This incident where a home owner shot an armed intruder will test the mettle of the NSW Police and Labor State Government.
Will the 75 year old home occupant be charged for shooting the intruder, 34 year old Joshua Dylan Trethewey, allegedly for forcing entry into the home, stabbing the woman in the chest and slashing the man across the abdomen while both are fighting for life after being airlifted to the Gold Coast University Hospital?
The Ben Fordham radio show is syndicated across Australia hence NSW Police will have to behave with some honour in this case and as Queensland MP Robbie Katter said: “Why should a person have to be conscious of being charged by police when defending his life, his wife’s life and his home?”
This is the conundrum on which Katters Australian Party’s proposed Castle Law hinges. The Queensland Liberal National Party Government so far has ignored a home owner’s right of self-defence which has been made entirely clear by centuries of Common Law.
A man’s home is his Castle.
Update from NSW Police:
Police have been told 75-year-old Keith Blessing and his 72-year-old wife Di were home at the time when a 34-year-old man entered the premises and allegedly stabbed both with a knife.
The woman collapsed with a chest wound while her husband was slashed across his abdomen, before the man went outside onto the verandah.
The homeowner called Triple Zero (000) seeking urgent assistance and police from Tenterfield and Glen Innes and NSW Ambulance paramedics were immediately despatched.
Before police arrived; however, the younger man attempted to get back into the house and was allegedly shot by the resident.
The couple were treated at the scene by NSW Ambulance paramedics for serious injuries, before being airlifted to Gold Coast Hospital in a critical condition.
The younger man was treated at the scene by NSW Ambulance paramedics for a gunshot wound and is being taken by road ambulance to Armidale Hospital under police guard. He is reported to be in a serious but stable condition.
A crime scene has been established by officers attached to New England Police District and an investigation into the incident has commenced
Inquiries so far indicate the younger man is not known to the couple.
It appears the only ones allowed to defend themselves are the criminal dogs hiding behind their uniforms. The difference of course is they shoot to kill, and that includes when they’re not being attacked. Just holding a knife is enough to have one shot dead. In fact, there are some dead who didn’t even have a weapon of any description. After they have been investigated by other corrupt criminals in uniforms, nothing happens. Meanwhile other people protecting themselves must weigh up if it’s best to die or face charges. What a fucking joke. The biggest criminal enterprises operating in Australia is the corporate police. There was a time I used to pull people off cops in pubs, these days I will not intervene. I will not see anything, give a statement or be a witness, no matter what happens to them. It is to me now criminals dealing with criminals. That is entirely their doing!
It would be nice to see Common Sense prevail. This would be a good case to show to the people that our governments and their policing arms are still capable of applying Common Sense.
Some are calling for a change in LAW to allow one’s own protection. There is no need for a change to allow this situation. It is already LAW. It is the courts and judges that need to be forced to follow the real LAWS of our country, not some moronic “law of the sea” or “maritime law” while being land bound. Fancy, a crime being perpetrated in Alice Springs is being tried under “maritime law” or “law of the sea”. How much more stupid can the judiciary and politicians become?
C’mon Ed – Don’t miss out on the Paris Riots? a good story there.
Outstanding. I have no problem with people defending themselves at home to any extent they can. You break into someone’s home don’t plan on coming out. If you do count yourself lucky. The law should reflect that.
We have a Law – CASTLE LAW. A Man’s home is his castle and none may enter without his consent! I grew up with this Law. It exists! To even put the homeowner on trial is a fraud! If this gentleman is judged as beig guilty of a Crime the it’s time WE ALL RISE UP. It could be YOU next.
brianajnz said – “… The home owner does not need to be charged…”
Yes he does. It’s obvious as can be, as stark as dog’s balls, as plain as tits on a bull.
Just ask the hired mercenary thugs roaming the streets over there in the UK, they even go the extra mile to protect the sociopathic assailant by handcuffing the mortally wounded innocent victim and forcefully holding him down on the ground until he DIES, they SIT ON HIM until he stops squirming so they know for sure that he’s good and DEAD. That’s REAL community service for you!
That’s how it works in the UK, and that’s how it works in Australia. Hey, OUR hired mercenary thugs even bash random unsuspecting bystanders BRAINS in at the train station and KILL them on national TV, and walk away grinning ear to ear with celebrity status, a commendation and fast tracked promotion!
And brianajnz said – “… Yes it is a crime scene and there is only one criminal…”
Damn right. And it AIN’T the psycho with the knife, just read the fine print in the shit-for-brains Granny-bashing child-molesting pig-raping mass-murdering hired mercenary thugs’ JOB DESCRIPTIONS and all their democidal Australia-hating INDOCTRINATION lesson plans at their Treasonous training camps.
Peterbro: bang on, The SURNAME is the one, and you have to nix it when in their Court.
The Birth Certificates are posted by the state government, not the parents, the ALL CAPS SURNAME being a state registered entity, and a name that you do not own.
This article explains it:
https://annavonreitz.com/twocrimesusedmostoften.pdf
It is unfortunate that people are ignorant of this sort of information, but the fact is that, as they say in the Bible: “My people perish for lack of knowledge.”
I often try to get in touch with people in regard to this sort of stuff, but it is often a degree of difficulty 9.6 scenario.
It would appear the home owner reached his gun, pistol, quickly.
The importance of not having guns locked away in cabinets.
A gun at hand gave the home owner the greatest chance of survival.
The importance of owning hand guns. Easy to keep in a kitchen draw.
Open and shut case. Home owner acted in self defence. No law can stop that.
The home owner does not need to be charged.
Yes it is a crime scene and there is only one criminal.
I read recently where a guy in Texas murdered someone who raped his 5 year old daughter.
Possibly a revenge killing. No charges against the father.
Common sense prevailed.
The Police are obligated to charge the shooter because the shooter damaged State property.
What’s the State property?
The knife wielding home intruder.
I’ll bet London to a brick that the intruder identifies as a legal entity that the State created, and as such the State has been given the right to use and profit from the intruder’s delusion and his equitable estate which he has abandoned.
Further I also bet London to a brick that the shooter suffers the same delusion and therefore binds himself to the feeble grants of the State in regards to his legal rights.
In the Bible it states that: “if you are going to be a slave, then be a good slave.”
The rights of slaves are few. and alienable.
If the shooter was to change the nature of his standing with respect to the fictional corporate State, then he has the alienable right to defend himself and his with whatever means he should choose.
How is it that a fictional corporate walloper such as one masquerading as a policeman is entitled to shoot dead someone wielding a knife or even screwdriver without being under the same law as the victim of the home invasion?
Because the State says it is so.
Rather than bitching and barking about how unfair it seems, make the sincere effort to see the reality of this imposed scam.
All the power is with the people, who have unalienable rights, but if they believe they are a fiction created by a corporation then that power is wanting.
The result of this episode will show clearly just where the Australian Government Corporation stands in relation to Constitutional law.
Original constitutional law is still in place with a few addons via referendums. It embraces all Colonial laws that were in place at Federation, and Common Law, plus Royal Assent Law, and what is written in it all together make up the totality of what we must obey.
***Admiralty law was not in place and is not Law for any landmass including Australia, even though it has been used as a takeover from Common law. This of course is a part of the Coup D eTat that has been progressively staged by fake Corporate Admiralty Australian Government since Queen Victoria died.
Parliaments are not given permission to make laws except as those requested by the public via referendums.
And the Constitution clearly says that it cannot be altered or deleted except by referendum, and we have not had or requested referendums on replacing Common law with Admiralty law which is only corporate law of shipping on the high seas (British Maritime Law), and has NO JURISDICTION ON LANDMASSES.
So under ROYAL ASSENT LAW, UNAPPROVED TRESPASSERS CAN BE REMOVED DEAD OR ALIVE.
SO IF ANYONE ENTERS YOUR PROPERTY/HOME WITHOUT YOUR EXPRESS APPROVAL, YOU CAN SHOOT THEM.
ADD TO THAT THEIR OBVIOUS INTENT WHEN THEY STAB AND SLASH YOU, AND YOU ARE QUITE WITHIN LAWFUL RIGHTS TO REPEL THEM ANY WAY YOU CAN.
STICK THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT, GOVERNMENT.
Sounds like a drug crazy, perhaps the cops do not want people shooting their customers
The question to be asked, of the Premier and the QLD Attorney-General is whether they deny that all people have the unalienable right to self defence?
The answer must be a Yes, or a No, only.
I know of a man who issued a Notice to the federal PTB to that effect, with his claim to his right to self defence being “..up to and including: lethal force.”
That should settle the matters, especially if in the form of an FOI request, and an FOI reply is the highest document available from the government, as they cannot lie in an FOI reply.
Without doubt… Castle Law’s immediate installation & activation is a no-brainer.! Such defence is quickly becoming a necessary stance… such aggressive offenders are on the rapid rise much to the horror of peace-abiding home owners.
I seem to recall a similar episode around 20 odd years ago. A punk broke into an old bloke’s house and the old bloke blew him away with a shotgun. Perhaps someone will recall the incident. The local idiots/’anti-gun’ crowd threw up a protest in front of the old bloke’s home. The cops charged him for murder. – I don’t have much hope for this bloke with the anti-gun/liberal attitude of the courts.
As for me, my defense would be ‘occupational hazard’. When someone is a roofer, it is an occupational hazard that they may have a fall. Same with a welder with a hot coal down his boot. – A criminal who breaks into a house, it is an occupational hazard that the homeowner may shoot the SOB.
Many believe that If this happened to any popular politicians and their partners or children or grandchildren; Castle Law would have been passed immediately.
The assailant should be charged for two attempted murders and two assaults, breaking and entering or trespassing on private property without authority to do so. And he should pay for all expenses associated with the havoch he created, after selling off whatever he owns. He should also be sued for the trauma he caused and pain and suffering which is ongoing, and of course the cost of the bullet and the necessary use of the firearm by the victims.
There can be no valid excuse for this sort of attempted murder, and he obviously carried or grabbed a weapon for the stabbing, so his intent was obvious.
These types of creatures should never be allowed to roam again, and should suffer the death penalty to show others what not to do.
Well if he hadn’t used his gun the young criminal would be going in to finish the job so the couple couldn’t talk.And then we would have police officers etc all over the place getting evidence to try and find the murderer. Hopefully the old couple will pull through with the help of our wonderful nurses and surgeons at the Gold Coast Hospital. And the intruder who Cares he knows what he’s done is wrong,and now the tax payers have to pay for his defence and jail time three square meals a day and free lodging plus medical on hand anytime. Hey governments it’s time to get real and change our laws to a higher level for these types of offenders. Kancho Alan
[…] Source link […]
Good on them defending themselves
Indignation and disgust at the culprit
Name and shame might curtail some
Under common law, Westminster Law, equal and opposite force is justified when defending yourself or anybody in your care! But caveats exist regarding the actual event. The person assaulted is aged and the assailant is young and fit, well then, the victim is justified using any means available to affect his defense
[…] Source link […]